Instr Sci (2013) 41:933–954

DOI 10.1007/s11251-012-9262-1

Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions

in varying learning situations

Jonna Malmberg • Hanna Järvenoja • Sanna Järvelä

Received: 1 April 2011 / Accepted: 31 December 2012 / Published online: 11 January 2013
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This study uses log file traces to examine differences between high- and low-
achieving students’ strategic actions in varying learning situations. In addition, this study
illustrates, in detail, what strategic and self-regulated learning constitutes in practice. The
study investigates the learning patterns that emerge in learning situations that are
(a) favourable and (b) challenging. It illustrates, in detail, one high- and one low achieving
student’s strategic actions in a learning situation that is considered challenging. Elementary
school students worked on a science study project for five weeks. During the science
project, the students used the gStudy learning environment, which prompted their strategy
use and recorded log file traces of their actual strategy use. First, the students were divided
into high and low achievers based on their learning gain. Second, gStudy sessions were
categorised into either challenging or favourable gStudy sessions based on the students’
situation-specific explanations. Third, the learning patterns that emerged in these gStudy
sessions were investigated. The results showed that both high- and low-achieving students
adopted similar strategies in favourable learning situations. However, when the learning
situation was considered challenging, the low-achieving students used surface-level
strategies, whereas the high-achieving students used deep strategies for learning. In
addition, the case description demonstrated that activating prior knowledge and setting a
clear, task-specific goal for studying preceded the high-achieving students’ selection of
deep strategy in action.

Keywords Self-regulated learning  Challenging learning situations  Strategic learning 

Study tactics  Log file traces  gStudy  Elementary school students

J. Malmberg (&)  H. Järvenoja  S. Järvelä

Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, Learning and Educational Technology
Research Unit (LET), University of Oulu, P.O.Box 2000, 90014 Oulu, Finland
e-mail: jonna.malmberg@oulu.fi
H. Järvenoja
e-mail: hanna.jarvenoja@oulu.fi
S. Järvelä
e-mail: sanna.jarvela@oulu.fi

123
934 J. Malmberg et al.

Introduction

When elementary school students learn within traditional school contexts, the tasks are
chosen by the teacher, derived from the curriculum and conducted within the classroom
context. The students are seldom given opportunities to recognise the limitations of the
learning context, or the resources to self-regulate their cognition within that context
(Garcia et al. 1998; Pintrich 2000). When the task conditions become challenging and call
for self-regulation, the students may give up and use self-handicapping strategies to avoid
stressful learning situations (Boekaerts and Niemivirta 2000). This might result from the
fact that the students do not recognise what the task is about, and therefore they fail to
control their cognition (Winne 2005). Recently, there has been emphasis within the field of
educational science on the ability of young children to both understand and self-regulate
learning if the context provides opportunities for regulation (Wigfield et al. 2011;
Whitebread et al. 2009). Thus, capacities to self-regulate learning, and knowledge of
strategies in different domains, do develop when children mature (Wigfield et al. 2011).
Yet the problem is that there are differences between how children of the same age self-
regulate learning and adapt their use of learning strategies (Ponitz et al. 2008; Bjorklund
et al. 1997). Acquiring self-regulated learning skills is a long-term developmental process
(Pressley 1995), and it is essential to provide students with a context and opportunities for
strategic self-regulation. In other words, this requires the provision of opportunities to
practise how to self-regulate learning within everyday school situations, and, at the same
time, the provision of a supporting learning context (Perry and VanDeKamp 2000; Winne
2006).
Four decades of research on strategy use and self-regulated learning have increased our
understanding about effective learning strategies (Paris and Paris 2001; Hadwin and Winne
1996; Schmeck 1988). Recently, strategy research has moved beyond observation of the
specific actions taken by students, as a single action cannot reveal a learning strategy
(Schmeck 1988). Rather, the successful use of learning strategies is embedded within a
self-regulated learning framework (SRL) to include several sub-processes, such as pro-
cedural (what the strategies are), declarative (why they should be used) and conditional
(when they should be used) knowledge (Flavell 1979; Paris and Paris 2001; Winne and
Hadwin 1998). Several studies have indicated a connection between success in academic
tasks and the use of learning strategies (Alexander et al. 1998; Pintrich and DeGroot 1990;
Paris and Paris 2007). Yet the majority of these studies has focused on demonstrating how
metacognitive, motivational and cognitive components are related to success in academic
tasks (e.g. Wolters 1999). These studies do not take into account the possibility that
students may differ in their self-regulated learning across different learning situations
(Hadwin et al. 2001). To date, very few studies have investigated temporal qualities of
SRL (Azevedo and Witherspoon 2009). An exception is Johnson et al’s. (2011) study
which examined temporal and dynamic nature of college students0 self-regulatory pro-
cesses while learning about the circulatory system. They used think-aloud data to explore
which self-regulatory strategies were used in different points of time. The results show that
the students activated more learning strategies at the beginning of their learning session
than later on. This might be due to the fact that students use more learning strategies if they
do not have appropriate knowledge of the topics. Also, as their learning about the topics
proceeded, the students used more planning activities, such as activation of prior knowl-
edge. These results provided very detailed information about which self-regulatory pro-
cesses were used at different points of time, but also about how self-regulated learning was
realised in action, albeit within laboratory settings. When it comes to examining self-

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 935

regulated learning within naturalistic school contexts, it is not clear how to empirically
identify learning situations when self-regulated learning strategies are activated (Hadwin
et al. 2011). Second, if it is possible to identify learning situations when self-regulated
learning strategies are activated, what strategies are actually used (e.g. Fielding et al.
2008)? Clearly, there is a need to understand the details of what constitutes self-regulated
learning and how self-regulated learning actually takes place in practice.

Self-regulated and strategic learning

Self-regulated learning can be divided into three different phases, namely: forethought,
performance and reflection (Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 1998). Self-regulated learning
occurs when students sustain and manage their achievement efforts through activities that
are employed toward attainment of their own goals (Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 1998). In
each phase of self-regulation, the students are invited to deploy key mechanisms of stra-
tegic and self-regulated behaviour, which eventually leads into the cyclical process of self-
regulated learning. In a forethought phase, the students analyse the task, set their own
learning goals and plan their future learning. Planning includes metacognitive knowledge
about different study techniques and also knowledge about the current task. During the
performance phase the students monitor their understanding and the effectiveness of the
study technique they use (Winne and Perry 2000). This metacognitive monitoring is
essential in the framework of self-regulated learning, as it provides the means for cognitive
control to occur (Winne and Hadwin 2008; Nelson et al. 1994). If students monitor a
mismatch between the outcome and the desired outcome, it is time for cognitive control.
For example, whenever a student takes corrective action to change their cognition (e.g. by
re-reading the text, selecting the important ideas, translating the ideas into their own words,
generating a matrix or a concept map), this is cognitive control (Winne 2001). In other
words, they choose to use a particular study technique in order to control their cognition
(Hadwin and Winne 1996). However, when students are strategic, they can consider dif-
ferent options about what technique to select in order to solve the problem that might
hinder their learning. Finally, in a reflection phase, the students evaluate their realised
learning activities and the outcome of learning. Based on this reflection, the students might
change their knowledge about the task or strategies for the future (Greene and Azevedo
2007; Winne and Hadwin 1998). In other words, learn new skills for self-regulated learning
(Zimmerman 2001).
Regulation of cognition is an aspect of self-regulated learning that focuses on how
students use various strategies to control and monitor their thinking processes during the
actual performance phase. Regulation of cognition covers monitoring and controlling
understanding and study technique use, as well as actual strategy use (Winne and Hadwin
2008; Pintrich 2000). Strategic learning is a goal-directed and planful learning process that
includes the purposeful use of study techniques and provides a means for cognitive control
to occur (Zimmerman 1998; Alexander et al. 1998). The ultimate meaning of learning
strategies is to process information effectively and maintain meaningful learning (Winne
2001). Several studies have demonstrated that successful use of learning strategies assists
in the storage of information in long-term memory and supports the retrieval of infor-
mation (Pressley and Harris 2006). According to Winne (2001) a learning strategy con-
stitutes a sequence of study techniques, e.g. predicting, reviewing, highlighting or
summarising. However, not all study techniques are necessarily strategically applied
(Zimmerman 2001). This is to say, strategic use of study techniques is goal-oriented and

123
936 J. Malmberg et al.

flexible. It involves planning and aims mostly for learning and understanding (Winne 2001;
Zimmerman 1998; Weinstein 1988; Alexander et al.1998).
The connection between strategy use and success in academic tasks is undeniable, but at
the same time problematic when it comes to the self-regulated use of learning strategies
(Pressley and Harris 2006; Pintrich and DeGroot 1990; Spörer et al. 2009). The problem is
that even though students may be able to name and use different types of strategies when
they are asked to do so, they do not necessarily use the strategies purposefully (Bransford
et al.1986). Also, the students believe that the strategies they use should vary depending on
the task or its demands (Nolen 1988; Pressley 1995). Yet the actual selection of strategy is
not necessarily optimal when a mismatch between outcome and desired outcome is
monitored (Winne and Jamieson-Noel 2002). Rather, the students often continue to use the
same ineffective strategy (Karpicke 2009). When it comes to spontaneous use of strategies,
the students do not use them or change their prominent strategy (Cao and Nietfeld 2007;
Graham et al. 2008; Rabinowitz. et al. 1992). This might be due to the fact that the students
are not aware of what strategies are, so they do not know when to change a strategy. Also,
the effort involved in carrying out a deeper strategy might be too great (Winne and Hadwin
2008). For example, a study conducted by Cao and Nietfeld (2007) followed how college
students used strategies when they perceived difficulties in their learning tasks over the
semester. Cao and Nietfeld asked the students, each week, to describe the concepts that
were difficult for them to understand and to explain the strategy they would use to improve
their understanding of those concepts. The study results showed that the students primarily
confronted challenges in terms of understanding the concepts, but also in finding rela-
tionships between these concepts. The study results showed that, even when the students
were aware of these difficulties, they still refused to change their existing strategy.
However, the study conducted by Cao and Nietfeld (2007) focused merely on cognitive
difficulties, regardless of the fact that the students confronted challenges that might result
from the motivational problems (Järvenoja and Järvelä 2005; Winne and Hadwin 2008).
According to Hadwin et al. (2011), the hallmark of self-regulated learning is the ability to
successfully overcome challenges in a learning situation. These challenges might also vary
in nature, whether they are cognitive, motivational or environmental. That is why there is a
need not only to take into account how the students monitor and control their cognition, but
also to consider their feelings and beliefs, which are the reasons for their attempts to learn
(or not learn) strategically (Zimmerman and Moylan 2009). Furthermore, these self-reg-
ulatory activities should be studied when learning takes place and especially identify
challenges students confront, since challenges provide opportunities for self-regulated
learning (Hadwin et al. 2011; Winne and Perry 2000).

Self-regulated and strategic learning with children

There are developmental and age-related differences between how students self-regulate
learning and understand how to use strategies (Schneider and Sodian 1997). That is,
children of the same age might develop in different stages when it comes to acquiring
strategic skills. Research has indicated four different stages for acquiring new strategies. At
the first phase, the production of a new strategy fails. At the second stage, strategy is not
produced completely. At the third phase, the production of the strategy does not lead to
improvement of performance. (For example, the student’s strategy use might actually
increase, but it does not improve learning.) Finally, at the fourth phase, the strategy is
performed completely and also improves learning (Bjorklund et al. 1997). How children

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 937

develop in terms of their strategy use depends more on their experiences in a school
context than it does on their age. That is, children apply strategies more effectively if they
are allowed to practice them, so they can judge what strategy to use in a current learning
situation and when to use it (Alexander et al. 1998). In addition, the evidence is accu-
mulating that children can be trained or prompted to use new strategies appropriate to the
learning situation (Paris and Paris 2001). For example, Perry and VandeKamp (2000)
designed tasks and procedures to promote self-regulated and strategic learning in an
everyday classroom among pre-school children. Their results indicated that even pre-
school students in these classrooms evidenced both high motivation and strategic learning
during their classroom work. Also, computer-based learning environments, such as gStudy
have been developed for supporting SRL (Winne 2006). When considering these types of
learning environments from the perspective of strategy development, the environments can
prompt children to use strategies that would not necessarily occur spontaneously
(Bjorklund et al. 1997). Also, these types of learning environments can also provide
insights into how students of the same age, and in various learning situations, can differ
with respect to how they understand the purpose of the strategy used.

Investigating trait and state of self-regulated learning

Self-regulated learning has typically been studied by applying two approaches, namely,
trait and state measures (Winne and Perry 2000). When self-regulated learning is studied as
a trait, it usually involves a description of the characteristics of a student that predict future
behaviour (Zimmerman 2008). The methods that capture SRL as a trait are usually
questionnaires or interviews. The problem is that self-regulated learning is hardly enduring
over different learning situations or even with different topics (Winne and Hadwin 2008;
Wolters 1999). A student who sets appropriate learning goals, plans for future learning and
adopts appropriate learning strategies within one learning situation, may not do so in
another learning situation (Winne and Jamieson-Noel 2002). Although trait measures do
reveal something about the characteristics of a person, they don’t reveal when self-
regulated learning actually takes place. In addition, the use of these trait measures is
problematic when it comes to examining strategic and self-regulated learning with chil-
dren. This is because children do not necessary understand the questions put to them and
the answers might rely on the verbal abilities of the children (Winne and Perry 2000).
The purpose of state measures is to investigate self-regulated learning within a learning
context and to consider evolution of self-regulated learning as a dynamic, not a static,
process (Järvelä and Lepola 2001). This approach captures students’ immediate regulation
(or lack of it) in relation to the learning context, such as task conditions or environment,
which are not constant over time (Linnenbrink 2006; Perry and Winne 2006; Whitebread
et al. 2009). State measures that can be used include, for example, log file traces or ESM
measures (Hadwin et al. 2007; Vollmeyer and Rheinberg 2006). The purpose of ESM
measures is to repeatedly capture students’ immediate feelings or thoughts when they are
engaged in a learning context. Log file traces, instead, capture the students’ immediate
learning activity and follow up on how the students’ use of different study techniques takes
place within a learning context (Hadwin et al. 2007). The advantage of the log file traces is
that they do not interrupt the learning process. That is, they capture the students’ actions in
respect of the task and context. Yet, it is difficult to interpret log file traces because they do
not show how and when different students self-regulate learning. For example, the learning
situation might be favourable for the students in terms of self-regulated learning to pursue

123
938 J. Malmberg et al.

their task-specific goals. This means that the students know what the task is about and what
strategy to use, and they are willing to invest effort into applying the strategy effectively.
On the other hand, the students might confront situational challenges. These may derive
from competing activities, such as conversing with friends, motivational problems such as
boredom or metacognitive problems such as unsatisfactory task understanding and diffi-
culties in judging the quality of their own learning gains (Järvenoja and Järvelä, 2009).
Nevertheless, these situational challenges might lead to insufficient use of strategies
(Winne and Nesbit 2009; Zimmerman and Moylan 2009).
Winne et al. (2006) has developed software called gStudy that aims to promote self-
regulated learning. gStudy records observable traces of students’ uses of strategies over
time during complex tasks and captures all study techniques that constitute a strategy in
sequence. Log file traces provide a means to investigate self-regulated strategy use when it
emerges without interrupting the learning process. Besides, log file traces can serve as an
indicator about the realised strategy use, not likely to be captured by any other method
(Nolen 2006; Perry and Winne 2006). Log file traces, for example, capture in detail each
event students perform when studying, such as their focus, concepts they choose to use,
and what actions they take when a mismatch between an outcome and desired outcome is
monitored (Hadwin et al. 2007). However, when the log file traces are collected in
authentic classroom settings over time, it is difficult to identify SRL episodes from other
behaviour (Nolen 2006). Meanwhile, recent literature suggests that challenges, whether
they are cognitive, motivational or behavioural, provide opportunity for self-regulated
learning (Hadwin et al. 2011). That is why it is important to combine log file traces with
other data sources that could provide additional information about when and how self-
regulated learning actually takes place. This is, to identify challenging learning situations
and subsequent strategy use within a classroom context.

Aim

The purpose of this study was to examine the learning patterns that emerge with high- and
low-achieving students in favourable and challenging learning situations when they study
with gStudy. The research questions were (a) What types of learning patterns, in terms of
strategies, do high- and low-achieving students typically use? and (b) How are these
learning patterns realised in terms of self-regulated learning in high- and low-achieving
students’ actions?

Methods

Participants and context

The elementary school students (N = 19) aged 9–10 years (12 boys and 7 girls) partici-
pated in a science project, Vital Conditions of Life, for 5 weeks. The science project
included classroom lessons with the teacher, experimental field trips, collaborative group
work and studying with the gStudy learning environment. The students were already
familiar with gStudy, as they had used it in science projects during the previous school
year.
The pedagogical structure of the science project was designed to promote self-regulated
learning. The task instructions were ill-structured, and the task structure was open. Also,

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 939

the students’ control of the task was emphasised by giving them choice over the order, the
pace, and what, how and when they would study in the gStudy learning environment. All
the students0 learning material was included in the gStudy learning environment.

gStudy

The students’ strategic learning was prompted by the assistance of gStudy software (Winne
et al. 2006). gStudy is an advanced multimedia learning environment that allows students
to practise using study techniques during actual learning. GStudy contents, for example
hyperlinked texts and graphics, are collected into learning kits displayed in a web browser
(Hadwin et al. 2007). Learning kits provide the students with a number of cognitive tools,
whose design was based on prior research of self-regulated learning. The students’ science
kit included four cognitive tools: ‘note’, ‘highlight with labels’, ‘concept map’ and
‘glossary’. The ‘note included four different templates that prompted students to (a) gen-
erate a question and an answer to the question; (b) contrast different concepts; (c) explain
the meaning of terms and concepts; and (d) explain observations. The ‘highlight’ included
three different types of labels, namely: ‘I don’t understand’, ‘important information’ and
‘interesting detail’. The concept map involved making connections between different types
of notes when the notes were created in a concept map view. In the ‘glossary’, all the
important concepts related to vital human conditions were explained. Besides cognitive
tools, gStudy also included a template that prompted students0 awareness of the current
learning situation (Järvelä et al. 2012).

Procedure

The teacher started the science project by introducing two stories about why two children
had to leave their home country. The purpose of these stories was to make the topics
personally meaningful for the students and also to give an initial idea about topics related
to the vital conditions for life. After introducing the stories, the teacher asked the students
to create a mind map outlining the main issues related to topics.
Second, the students were instructed by the teacher to use and practise different study
techniques with the assistance of four different cognitive tools in gStudy. The teacher gave
a short instruction and illustrated how to use these tools, then asked the students to practise
them when studying with gStudy. The teacher also explained the purpose of each tool.
Third, the teacher instructed the students to think about and elaborate upon the current
learning situation before they started to work in gStudy. This was done to increase the
possibilities for active regulation at the beginning of each studying session.
The topics that were studied with gStudy were: water, air, nutrition, heat, light, family
and human rights. Each topic was titled separately and included science texts and related
graphics. The students worked for one to two hours, three times a week, over the five-week
duration of the science project. After the science project, the teacher asked the students to
create a mind map with paper and pen to outline the main issues that are related to vital
conditions for life.

Study design

In order to identify self-regulated learning episodes, the learning situations are divided into
favourable and challenging gStudy sessions. This categorisation is made because, unless

123
940 J. Malmberg et al.

challenges are acknowledged, there is no reason for self-regulated learning. Nevertheless,

the mark of successful learners is their ability to overcome situation-specific challenges
(Hadwin et al. 2011).

Pre-and post-tests

Students’ learning gain was measured by analysing the mind maps the students created
before (n = 19) and after (n = 19) the science study project. This was done to measure the
students’ learning gain in the task.

Challenging and favourable learning situations

Each time the students started studying with gStudy, they were asked to fill out a template
in gStudy that prompted them to explain the current learning situation. The students were
asked an open question, in which they were asked to explain the current learning situation
(Järvelä et al. 2012). However, whether or not the students actually filled in the template
was not controlled. The students’ explanations were coded as to whether the current
learning situation was favourable or challenging.

Log file traces

Each time the students logged into the gStudy learning environment, it recorded traces of
everything they did when studying with gStudy in a local XML database (Winne et al.
2006). The recorded log file traces constituted a series of events, namely model and view
events. A model event is when the student modifies information, for example highlighting
information with a label or creating a note. A view event is information about how the
student views the contents of gStudy, such as hyperlinks, glossary or texts (Hadwin et al.
2007).

Analysis

The data analysis is divided into two different segments. The purpose of the first segment is
to identify learning patterns that emerge with high-and low-achieving students. The second
segment instead focuses on providing very detailed case descriptions about how these
learning patterns are realised in one high- and one low-achieving student’s actions.
In order to analyse learning patterns, the students were first divided in two groups,
namely high- and low-achieving students, based on their learning gain. This categorisation
is used as a basis for further analysis. Second, the learning situations were categorised into
challenging and favourable gStudy sessions based on the students’ explanations of the
learning situation. Third, the log file traces were categorised into challenging and
favourable gStudy sessions based on the students’ coded explanations. Fourth, the types of
learning patterns that emerged in challenging and favourable gStudy sessions with high-
and low-achieving students was explored.
Two students were selected for more detailed analysis to illustrate how and when these
learning patterns were actually used and to provide a detailed case study.

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 941

Learning gain: mind map analysis

The analysis of the mind maps is divided into three different phases and is loosely based on
Novak (1998) coding scheme. These mind maps consist of nodes that represent concepts
and links that represent relationships between concepts (Hilbert and Renkl 2008).
First, we counted the number of nodes (concepts) the students identified that related to
the topics. Altogether, 14 concepts were present in the students’ gStudy learning material.
Second, we counted each informative node related to the topic. Nodes such as ‘this is
important’ or ‘I would die without it’ were considered irrelevant and excluded from the
ratings. Third, we counted how many categories the mind maps included. The categories
express the relationships between the nodes that describe in more detail the meaning of a
concept. The mind maps were evaluated by two independent raters. If the ratings were
unclear, a third researcher’s opinion was taken into account to ensure inner congruence in
the ratings. The purpose of this procedure was to ensure that consistent coding of the mind
maps.

Defining high- and low-achieving students

K-means cluster analysis was used to establish two groups, namely high- and low-
achieving students. The clusters were formulated based on the concepts coded from stu-
dents’ mind maps before the science study project and concepts and categories coded from
their mind maps after the science study project. There were no categories presented in the
mind maps that were created before the science study project. Based on this two-cluster
solution, the students were divided into two groups: high- and low-achieving students.
The Mann–Whitney U test showed no differences in the concepts and categories of
high- and low-achieving students’ mind maps before the science study project. Also, both
groups were able to name the concepts related to the topics after the science study project.
However, the high-achieving students group showed a significantly greater increase within
their conceptual understanding (p = 0,00*) when contrasted with low-achieving students’
learning gain (See Table 1.) This means that, at the end of the science project, the high-
achieving students were capable of providing a multifaceted detailed description of what
the different concepts actually mean.

Defining challenging and favourable learning situations

The students’ explanations of the learning situation (f = 98) were categorised into ‘chal-
lenging’ or ‘favourable’ situations. As there were five low-achieving students and two
high-achieving students who were reluctant to explain their situation-specific interpreta-
tions (they reported constantly ‘‘I don’t know’’ or ‘‘Everything is fine’’), they were
excluded from the analysis.

Table 1 High- and low-achieving students’ learning gain

Mind maps Pre-categories Post-categories

Pre N Post N Mdn SD Mdn SD

High-achieving students 7 7 0 0 9.86* 1.033
Low-achieving students 12 12 0 0 1.50* 0.500
* Indicates significant at p \ 0.05

123
942 J. Malmberg et al.

Table 2 Situation-specific challenges

Categories Descriptions of the categories Examples

Cognitive Not knowing what one is about to do. Task-, ‘‘I don’t know what to do!’’
(f = 11) time- and progress-related explanations ‘‘I need to remember the questions,’’ ‘‘I
don’t have enough time.’’
Motivational Explanations about task or school-related ‘‘THIS IS BORING!’’
(f = 30) activities that are not related to the task. ‘‘We are going to see a movie!’’ ‘‘I’m
Explanations about feelings, such as exited!’’ ‘‘I don’t like to use gStudy’’ or ‘‘I
excitement or anxiety have lost my sock!’’
Environment Explanations about how others in classroom ‘‘Others disturb me’’ ‘‘Others make me
(f = 7) disturb learning laugh!’’

In the first phase, the students’ explanations were read through several times. The
explanations provided information on whether the students considered the learning situa-
tion to be either favourable or challenging. The learning situation was favourable if the
student’s situational focus was related to the task (‘‘I know what I am supposed to do’’), or
the student’s situational feeling was positive (‘‘I feel fine’’). The learning situation was
challenging if the student’s situational focus was not related to task (‘‘We are going to see a
movie’’), the students expressed negative feelings (‘‘This is boring,’’ ‘‘I don’t feel fine’’) or
the students expressed anxiety related to progress in the task (‘‘I need to remember my
questions,’’ ‘‘I don’t have enough time’’). All the students0 explanations of the learning
situation were categorised by two raters as either favourable or challenging learning
situations; inter-rater agreement of categorisation reached 100 %. In future, learning sit-
uations are defined either as challenging or favourable depending on the students’ situa-
tion-specific explanation.
Next, only the explanations that present challenging learning situations (f = 48) were
selected for more detailed analysis. These explanations were coded into three different
categories, namely cognitive (f = 11), motivational (f = 30) and environmental (f = 7)
(see Table 2). These categories represent the different types of challenges the students
explained. All the explanations were categorised by two raters; reliability estimates for
categorisation (Cohens0 K) for categories was 0.80. Based on this categorisation, the stu-
dents explained the most motivational challenges (f = 30). Yet, cognitive challenges were
reported 11 times and challenges related to the environment seven times.

Challenging learning situations with high- and low-achieving students

Figure 1 illustrates how the high- and low-achieving students explained their situation-
specific challenges. The low-achieving students (n = 7) confronted situation-specific
challenges 28 times, whereas the high-achieving students (n = 5) confronted situation-
specific challenges 20 times. Seven low-achieving students’ situation-specific challenges
were coded into categories such as cognitive (f = 7), motivational (f = 16) or environ-
mental (f = 5). Five high-achieving students’ situation-specific challenges were coded to
categories such as cognitive (f = 4), motivational (f = 14) or environmental (f = 2).
Mann–Whitney U test showed that high- and low achieving students did not differ from
each other in terms of confronting challenging or favourable learning situations (p [ 0.05).

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 943

Fig. 1 Challenging learning situations with high- and low-achieving students

Favourable and challenging gStudy sessions

Five high-achieving students and seven low-achieving students were selected in order to
analyse the learning patterns that emerged in favourable and challenging gStudy sessions
based on the recorded log file traces. These students were selected because they had
explained their learning situations as both favourable and challenging.
First, the log file traces were divided into two categories: high-achieving students0
gStudy sessions and low-achieving students0 gStudy sessions. Second, the coded expla-
nations of these students’ situation-specific challenges were searched for from log file
traces. After the specific log file traces were identified, the log file traces of these students
were divided into four categories (see Table 3). These categories represent favourable and
challenging gStudy sessions from high- and low-achieving students. There were 62 log
files altogether from high-achieving students and 84 log files from low-achieving students.
From high-achieving students there were 41 favourable gStudy sessions and 21 challenging
gStudy sessions. From low-achieving students there were 56 favourable gStudy sessions
and 26 challenging gStudy sessions.

Learning patterns and traceable events

Next, the learning patterns that emerged from high- and low-achieving students learning
activity in challenging and favourable gStudy sessions were investigated. Learning patterns
refer to different sequences about how traceable events typically emerge with high- and
low-achieving students’ actions in favourable and challenging gStudy sessions. This is to
say, learning patterns will show how cognitive tools are typically used among the high- and
low-achieving students in varying gStudy sessions.
With the data-mining method, the most common sets of events, considered as learning
patterns, were investigated from high- and low-achieving students’ activity from chal-
lenging and favourable gStudy sessions. The learning patterns were identified with the
logAnalyser (Xu et al. 2007). That is, the data-mining method returns not only learning
patterns that emerge throughout the studying sessions, but also the frequencies of these

Table 3 Favourable and chal-

High-achieving students Low-achieving students
lenging gStudy sessions
Favourable Challenging Favourable Challenging
gStudy gStudy gStudy gStudy
sessions sessions sessions sessions

f = 41 f = 21 f = 56 f = 27

123
944 J. Malmberg et al.

Table 4 Traceable events

Traceable events (f = 9)

Create new concept map

Link notes in concept map
Create note in a concept map
Create note in a note view
Create note in a browser
Label: Important information
Label: Interesting detail
Label: I don’t understand
View glossary

patterns. This includes patterns that are the most typical throughout the studying sessions
(Nesbit et al. 2007). Table 4 presents a list of all the traceable events that emerged from the
students0 activity in gStudy. After the traceable events were identified, the logAnalyser
parses only these events from the extraneous events that are recorded and, finally, data-
mining method illustrates what types on learning patterns emerge from these events.

Detailed case descriptions

Based on the learning patterns that emerged from high- and low-achieving students’
activity in challenging gStudy sessions, one high- and one low-achieving student’s gStudy
session was selected for more detailed trace data analysis. These students’ gStudy sessions
were selected based on two criteria. The first was that these case students had the most
challenging gStudy sessions when compared to other students. The second criterion was
that these case students used the most typical learning pattern on the selected gStudy
session based on their log file traces. First the duration of these selected gStudy sessions
was identified. Next, pages these students had visited and actions that were taken on each
page were identified. Finally, both of these students’ traceable events were replicated in
detail and identified with a time-stamped record from XML data. This means that if the
student constructed a concept map, we identified what notes already existed in it, what
notes were created in it during the selected gStudy session, when the notes were made,
what page the student was on, and the location of the selected information on that page.
Moreover, if the student had used many highlights, we identified exactly what pieces of the
text were highlighted, with what label and when. When the analysis is conducted in such a
detailed manner, it is possible to illustrate if and how self-regulated learning strategies are
activated and, moreover, how the most typical learning pattern that emerged across gStudy
sessions was actually used in the case students’ selected gStudy session.

Results

To answer the research questions, the analysis began by grouping students based on their
learning gain. This resulted in two groups of students, namely high- and low-achieving
students, which was used in further analysis. Next, the challenging learning situations were
coded and categorised from the students’ situation-specific explanations. Based on this
categorisation, favourable and challenging gStudy sessions from high- and low-achieving
students were identified.

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 945

The results of this study are presented according to the research questions. First, we
present what type of learning patterns high- and low-achieving students typically use in
varying gStudy sessions. Second, we use case examples to illustrate how these learning
patterns are realised in high- and low-achieving students’ actions in gStudy.

What type of learning patterns, in terms of strategies, do high- and low-achieving

students typically use?

In favourable gStudy sessions, high- and low-achieving students used the same learning
pattern, which focused on making notes. However, in the challenging gStudy sessions,
high-achieving students selected a deep strategy, which focused on constructing a concept
map. The low-achieving students instead often selected a surface-level strategy, focusing
on highlighting with different types of labels.

Learning patterns in favourable gStudy sessions

In the favourable gStudy sessions, only one learning pattern emerged from high- and low
achieving students learning activity (See Table 5). Both groups learning pattern was
exactly similar. This learning pattern was composed of making three notes successively in
a concept map. This pattern emerged 17 times with low-achieving students and 14 times
with high-achieving students.

Learning patterns in challenging gStudy sessions

However, in low-achieving students, 88 learning patterns emerged in challenging gStudy

sessions. Each of these 88 learning patterns was used 8–12 times during 27 gStudy ses-
sions, and they varied in length from 3 to 12 events. However, these learning patterns do
overlap with each other. This means that a shorter pattern is included into the next longer
pattern until the saturation point is reached. These 88 learning patterns were composed of
different combinations of traceable events (see Table 6). For example, highlighting with
the label ‘Important information’ emerged in 76 learning patterns. Highlighting with the
label ‘Interesting detail’ emerged in 80 learning patterns. A combination of these two
events emerged in 65 learning patterns. However, ‘note making’ was included in only eight
learning patterns and ‘link making’ in two learning patterns. This means that of the 88
learning patterns, only two of them were focused on constructing a concept map, eight of
them included making notes and the remaining 80 learning patterns were focused on
highlighting with different types of labels. The most typical learning pattern was composed
of highlighting with the label ‘Interesting information’, three times successively. This
pattern was used 12 times.

Table 5 Learning patterns in favourable and challenging gStudy sessions

High achieving students Low achieving students

Favourable gStudy Challenging gStudy Favourable gStudy Challenging gStudy

sessions (f = 41) sessions (f = 21) sessions (f = 56) sessions (f = 27)

Learning f=1 f=1 f=1 f = 88

patterns

123
946 J. Malmberg et al.

Table 6 Low-achieving stu-

Traceable events (f = 9) Occurrence of traceable
dents’ learning patterns in
events in learning patterns (f)
demanding gStudy sessions
Create note in a concept map 8
Link notes in a concept map 2
Label: Important information 76
Label: Interesting detail 80
Total number of learning patterns 88

When it comes to high-achieving students’ challenging gStudy sessions only one

learning pattern emerged. This learning pattern was used seven times, and it was composed
of three events that were used successively. The events in high-achieving students0 most
typical learning pattern were ‘make note’, ‘make link’ and ‘make note’. In other words,
this learning pattern was focused on constructing a concept map. Yet, the purpose of the
first event, note making, is to generate a note from new information. The link making
instead means that the purpose of a link in this specific pattern is to connect a new note and
already existing note when constructing a concept map. The other possibility is to connect
two notes that already exist in a concept map.

How are these learning patterns realised in terms of self-regulated learning in high-
and low-achieving students’ actions?

Another aim of this study was to illustrate in detail how one high- and one low-achieving
student’s learning patterns are realised in action. The case examples are Tommi, who is a
high-achieving student and Nina, who is a low-achieving student. The data examples target
a specific challenging gStudy session where the learning pattern is also realised in action.
To be more precise, the study sought to illustrate what events precede the learning pattern,
what the contents of the learning patterns are and, moreover, how the pattern is actually
used. For Nina the specific learning pattern includes highlighting three times successively
with the label ‘Interesting detail’. For Tommi, the specific learning pattern focuses on
constructing a concept map (make note–make link–make note).

High achiever Tommi0 s learning activity in challenging gStudy session

Figure 2 presents all of Tommi0 s traceable events in a timeline. The three rows in a vertical
axis present the three events that emerged during that one session. These events are:
1 = Hyperlink clicking, 2 = Note making and 3 = Linking notes in a concept map. The
vertical axis presents the timing of these events and four pages on which these events take
place. The hyperlinks Tommi uses as a resource for studying are: (a) Main page, (b) Table of
contents, (c) Water and (d) Atmosphere. ‘Main page’ does not include any text related to the
topics. In ‘Table of contents’ all the topics are introduced. The pages ‘Water’ and ‘Atmo-
sphere’ include information texts. The duration of this gStudy session was 15 min, 13 s. The
learning pattern was realised when Tommi studied the water and atmosphere topics.

Tommi0 s case description

The following case description realises an aspect of high-achieving students’ self-regulated

learning in a challenging learning situation. Despite the fact that self-regulated learning

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 947

Fig. 2 Sequence and timing of Tommi0 s traceable events in gStudy session

cannot be directly observed, the study techniques Tommi uses are traceable events, and
they can in some sense be inferred. Tommi0 s case description demonstrates how self-
regulated learning actually takes place in practice, in a learning situation that is considered
challenging.
Tommi is focused on constructing a mind map by making notes and connections
between them. At the starting point of this session Tommi notes that ‘This is boring’. Yet,
despite the lack of motivation at the beginning, Tommi starts his studying by viewing the
concept map. At this point, Tommi is on the main page. The main page does not include
any information related to the topics, only two hyperlinks and a picture. At this point,
Tommi activates his prior knowledge and starts his studying by making two new notes that
consider topics such as (‘Oxygen’) and (‘Nutrition’). Also, he links these notes into
existing notes in his concept map.
Second, Tommi0 s events indicate that he starts to plan his studying. Tommi visits a table
of contents page in which all the topics are presented. Based on the topics that are
presented, Tommi sets a specific goal for learning by formulating a question (‘How can we
get clean water?’) followed by making a new note in a concept map (‘Water’).
At the actual studying phase, Tommi is selective. First, he selects only main concepts in
two different pages by making notes. However, the information that is presented in these
notes is located in the first paragraphs of both pages. Instead of making detailed notes
about the topics, Tommi focuses on creating an overall picture about the topics. Finally,
Tommi ends the session by planning future studying: He opens one more page, but no
actions are taken on that page.
The learning patterns that were realised in Tommi0 s learning activity were used during a
studying phase. Yet, based on the detailed analysis of traceable events, the study results
indicate that those actions that were taken before the learning pattern was realised were a
prerequisite for strategic learning.

Low achiever-Nina0 s learning activity in a challenging learning situation

Figure 3 presents all of Nina0 s traceable events in a timeline. The four rows in the vertical
axis present three events, namely, 1 = hyperlink clicking, 2 = highlight ‘Interesting
detail’, 3 = highlight ‘Important information’, 4 = highlight ‘I don’t understand’. The
vertical axis presents the timing of these events, hyperlinks and specific paragraphs in
which the events take place. This is because Nina views only one topic, which is divided

123
948 J. Malmberg et al.

Fig. 3 Sequence and timing of Nina0 s traceable events in gStudy session

into four different paragraphs and includes two footnotes. The duration of this gStudy
session was 7 min, 16 s. The learning pattern that was realised in Nina’s actions includes
labeling with the highlight ‘Interesting detail’ three times successively and is realised
immediately in Nina0 s action.
The following case description realises aspects of Nina0 s actions in challenging learning
situation. The study techniques Nina uses are traceable events and they can be inferred in
some sense. Nina0 s case description demonstrates how study techniques are used in
practice, in a learning situation which is considered challenging.

Nina0 s case description

Nina is focused only on one topic and uses only one strategy, which is highlighting with
different types of labels. At the starting point of this session Nina notes that ‘My cousin is
leaving from us today’. Despite the negative feelings, Nina goes through the texts from the
‘Water’ page in detail. The texts in a page are divided into four paragraphs, and Nina
examines each paragraph linearly and highlights texts with different types of labels.
Despite the fact that Nina goes through each paragraph she struggles to identify the main
ideas. The learning pattern, highlighting three times successively, is realised immediately
at Nina0 s learning activity, followed by the highlight ‘I don0 t understand’. This indicates
that Nina struggles to understand what the paragraph is about. Yet, even though Nina
monitors a mismatch between her understanding and selected strategy she continues with
the same strategy, which is switching the labels between ‘Important information’ and
‘Interesting detail’ and eventually ‘I don0 t understand’.
In the third paragraph Nina highlights the first sentence with the label ‘Interesting
detail’. After 2 min, she labels the whole paragraph ‘I don0 t understand’, and again,
‘Interesting detail’. Nina still refuses to or is incapable of changing her strategy, and finally
she ends the session by highlighting five questions at the end of the page with the label ‘I
don’t understand’. These questions served as a checklist about whether the student had
identified main ideas from the texts. However, log file traces indicate that Nina was
actually interested in understanding what the text was about, but was incapable of or
unwilling to adjust her strategy in order to understand what the text was about.

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 949

Discussion

The present study aimed to identify learning strategies high- and low-achieving students
typically use in favourable and challenging learning situations when studying with gStudy
and also to investigate how these learning patterns are realised in the students’ actions. The
study results indicated that there are differences between high- and low-achieving students’
self-regulated learning and strategy uses only in challenging learning situations. When the
learning situation becomes challenging and calls for self-regulated learning, the low-
achieving students used surface-level strategy, whereas the high-achieving students used
deep strategy for learning. Moreover, the study results demonstrated that students’ strategy
use differs from situation to situation. Earlier research has shown that students’ strategy use
varies depending on the task or how they progress at the task (Hadwin et al. 2001; Johnson
et al. 2011). However, this study shows that students do differ in their strategy use
depending on how they perceive the current learning situation. In this study we contrasted
learning patterns that emerge in challenging and favourable learning situations with high-
and low-achieving students, in order to demonstrate how self-regulated learning strategies
are used in situations that are considered challenging and require self-regulated learning.
The case description demonstrated that activating prior knowledge and setting a clear,
task-specific goal for studying preceded the selection of deep strategy in action with the
high-achieving students. Winne and Hadwin 1998 information processing model of self-
regulated learning proposes that students go through at least three different phases during
learning. The first phase, task analysis, allows students to activate prior knowledge of the
topics and also make judgments about the task requirements. In this study, the task analysis
phase was evident when the student created notes from the topics before opening the
learning material. In addition, he judged that the task was boring. This might be due to the
fact that the task was too easy, which led to boredom, or that he was already familiar with
the task requirements, which also led to boredom. Nevertheless, he experienced situational
challenges that he needed to overcome in order to cope with the task requirements (Hadwin
et al. 2011). The second phase of Winne and Hadwin0 s model, goal setting and planning,
was evident in this study when the student created a question expressing a task-specific
sub-goal. The third phase is applying study techniques to reach the learning goal. In this
study, the student used organisational strategy in order to reach his learning goal. This
strategy was also the most typical learning pattern with high-achieving students. Based on
Winne and Hadwin0 s model, enacting strategies is essential since it provides opportunities
to monitor the current level of knowledge against the standards that are hold for learning.
However, if the current state of learning does not match the standards, students can
regulate their learning by changing their standards or strategies. On the other hand, not all
students monitor and control their learning despite the fact that it is the key feature of self-
regulated learning.
The results are consistent with the earlier research considering self-regulated learning
and cognitive strategy use (Wolters and Pintrich 1998; Pintrich and DeGroot 1990). Thus,
this study provides micro-level evidence in terms of traces contributing to theories and
models of self-regulated learning in terms of monitoring and control activities students use
(Winne and Hadwin 1998). The study results demonstrated that when the circumstances for
learning are favourable, both high- and low-achieving students used a similar strategy. The
strategy that both high- and low-achieving students spontaneously selected in favourable
learning situations focused on making notes, which can be a highly effective strategy
(Slotte and Lonka 1999). In challenging learning situations the high-achieving students
were consistent and began to search for connections between existing notes and new notes,

123
950 J. Malmberg et al.

whereas the low-achieving students instead focused mostly on highlighting. Moreover, the
low-achieving students were not strategic (Malmberg et al. 2010). In other words, not all
the students monitor and regulate their learning, which was quite evident with low
achieving students (Winne and Hadwin 1998). The detailed case description of the low-
achieving student revealed that the low-achieving student did not plan learning or activate
prior knowledge. Rather, studying was started immediately, and the chosen strategy was a
surface-level strategy. The selection of a surface-level strategy might be due to the fact that
because there was no planning, the student actually didn’t know how to proceed. On the
other hand, it might be that the low-achieving students were not willing to invest effort for
deep learning or they just didn’t know what study technique to use in order to fix their
problems (Abrami 2010; Schraw 1998). These options are likely, as the case description
demonstrated that the low-achieving student recognised when she was off track but took no
corrective actions. This is to say, there is a need to investigate in more detail what
strategies elementary school students typically use when confronting different task types,
such as ill- and well-structured tasks that differ in terms of difficulty level. This might
provide more insights on how to design learning tasks that are optimally challenging, but
still might provide an opportunity for self-regulated learning.
Based on the results, it is suggested that situation-specific prompts can help students to
set task-specific goals, and with respect to that goal, use specific study techniques to reach
that goal. Also, the prompts should be used during the actual studying phase. For example,
if the student monitors that she or he is off track, prompting the student to describe the
problem provides an opportunity for regulation if there is a mismatch between the actual
and desired level of learning (Winne and Hadwin 1998). The student should also be asked
why the study technique failed. This might provide opportunities for the future to use the
appropriate situated study techniques. And, finally, when the problem is stated and a new
study technique that is considered useful has been selected, the student could self-
experience how strategy use actually influences learning.
There have already been attempts to create learning environments that support self-
regulated learning ‘on the fly’ (Azevedo et al. 2005; Hadwin et al. 2010; Manlove et al.
2007). However, most of the studies are conducted with university students in controlled
settings. Recently, research on self-regulated learning among elementary school students
has increased (Dignath et al. 2008). This might result in the discovery that even elementary
school students can self-regulate learning, and, moreover, it would benefit the students to
learn self-regulated learning skills at the elementary school level (Perry and VandeKamp,
2000).
Even though log file traces are authentic and contain extremely situation-specific data,
they are not completely flawless, especially when the data is collected in a classroom
setting. In a classroom, the students might have used different tools in gStudy to amuse
themselves, or maybe their intention was not to study in the first place. In addition, when
examining self-regulated learning with log file traces, they provide information on how
they might reflect self-regulated learning. That is, they are needed to interpret against the
theory, which also might affect the validity of this study. In order to overcome this issue,
each step of the analysis as well as case descriptions are made visible for the readers. Also,
there is a need to collect situated and long-term log file traces in authentic classroom
settings to better understand how log file traces reflect self-regulated learning. Besides that,
there is need to investigate what kinds of prompts the students actually require and how
these prompts are used in practice for self-regulated learning (Abrami, 2010). On one hand,
analysis of log file traces is very labour-intensive. First, there is a need to understand
exactly what constitutes the log file trace and what is the most ecological method to get the

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 951

most out of it (Hadwin et al. 2007). Many studies have used, for example, statistical
information of traceable events (e.g. Azevedo et al. 2005; Manlove et al. 2007). However,
the statistical measures do not show the sequence of these traceable events or how they
actually are used. Second, even though data mining is a suitable method to provide
information about the sequences of events, it does not show the contents of these events.
For example, the detailed case descriptions in this study were created from raw ‘xml’ data,
first identifying the traceable events and the contents of these events, then replicating when
and where these events were taken by the students, and finally situating these events into a
theoretical framework of self-regulated learning (Winne and Hadwin 2008; Pintrich 2000).
Despite the fact that strategic and self-regulated learning cannot be directly observed,
the study techniques the students use are traceable events and can in some sense be inferred
(Scardamalia and Bereiter 1983; Winne and Jamieson-Noel 2002). As the learning patterns
are composed of study techniques, they will reveal the actual strategy selection of the
students ‘on the fly’ (Winne et al. 2006). Also, with the assistance of more situation-
sensitive tools, it is possible to get insights about self-regulated learning in varying situ-
ations. After all, it has been argued that a challenge provides opportunity for self-regulated
learning (Hadwin et al. 2011). That is why there is a need to apply situation-specific,
embedded tools that will capture not only what the students do, but also what they think
(Järvelä and Järvenoja 2011). Even though log file traces are not the most typical method
used to investigate self-regulated learning, there are at least two recommendations for
future research (Hadwin et al. 2007). First of all, they will provide a method to examine
self-regulated learning ‘on the fly’. Secondly, when enough empirical evidence about how
self-regulated learners study in varying situations has been gained, the students should
provide immediate feedback about their studying. This feedback could be generated by the
learning environment, for example, when students use a counterproductive learning pattern
or they perceive a challenge in studying. However, the feedback should consist not only of
detailed information about study techniques but also what these techniques mean and why
they should be used. After all, there is a great deal of potential in the development of
learning environments.
It seems that the students need specific support especially in the planning and fore-
thought phase, which gives direction for learning. This might help the students to better
evaluate their adaptation of strategy. However, as these results are speculative because of
the small sample size, there is a need to investigate whether these traced events that
preceded the actual strategy use exist in different learning contexts; moreover, if they do
exist, how do students’ situation-specific interpretations influence their activated self-
regulated strategy use.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Doctoral Programme for Multidisciplinary
Research on Learning Environments.

References

Abrami, P. (2010). On the nature of support in computer-supported collaborative learning using gStudy.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 835–859.
Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and
prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129–154.
Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human
scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science,
33(5–6), 381–412.

123
952 J. Malmberg et al.

Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In D. J. Hacker, J.
Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). Mahwah:
Routledge.
Bjorklund, D., Miller, P., Coyle, T., & Slawinski, J. (1997). Instructing children to use memory strategies:
Evidence of utilization deficiencies in memory training studies. Developmental Review, 17, 411–441.
Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulation in learning: Finding a balance between learning-
and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 417–450). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Vye, N., & Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving. American
Psychologist, 41, 1078–1089.
Cao, L., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2007). College students0 metacognitive awareness of difficulties in learning the
class content does not automatically lead to adjustment of study strategies. Australian Journal of
Educational & Developmental Psychology, 7, 31–46.
Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeld, H.-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated
learning effectively? : A meta analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research
Review, 3(2), 101–129.
Fielding, I., Winters, J., Greene, A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-
based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 429–444.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A New area of cognitive-developmental
inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Garcia, T., McCann, E. J., Turner, J. E., & Roska, L. (1998). Modeling the mediating role of volition in the
learning process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(4), 392–418.
Graham, S., Santos, D., & Vanderplank, R. (2008). Listening comprehension and strategy use: A longitu-
dinal exploration. System, 36(1), 52–68.
Greene, A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin0 s model of self-regulated
learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Reseacrh, 77(3), 334–372.
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated and socially shared regulation
of learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Hand-Book of self-regulation of learning and
performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.
Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J., Jamieson-Noel, D., Code, J., & Winne, P. (2007). Examining trace data to explore
self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 107–124.
Hadwin, A. F., Oshige, M., Gress, C., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Innovative ways for using gStudy to
orchestrate and research social aspects of self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(5), 794–805.
Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (1996). Study strategies have meager support: A review with recommen-
dations for implementation. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(6), 692–715.
Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates
students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 477–487.
Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: What
characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36(1), 53–73.
Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2011). Socially constructed self-regulated learning and motivation regulation in
collaborative learning groups. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 350–374.
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Malmberg, J. (2012). How elementary school students’ motivation is connected
to self-regulation? Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(1), 65–84.
Järvelä, S., Salonen P., & Lepola, J. (2001). Dynamic assessment as a key to understanding student
motivation in a classroom context. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in research on
motivation: New directions in measures and methods (Vol 12, pp. 217–240). Greenwich: Elsevier.
Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2005). How students describe the sources of their emotional and motivational
experiences during the learning process: A qualitative approach. Learning and Instruction, 15(5),
465–480.
Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning: Do students regulate emotions
evoked by social challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 463–481.
Johnson, A.M., Azevedo, R., & D́Mello, S.K. (2011). The temporal and dynamic nature of self-regulatory
processes during independent and externally assisted hypermedia learning. Cognition and Instruction,
29(4), 471–504.
Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during
learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 469–486.
Linnenbrink, E. (2006). Emotion research in education: Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the
integration of affect, motivation, and cognition. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 307–314.

123
Patterns in elementary school students0 strategic actions 953

Malmberg, J., Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2010). Tracing elementary school students’ study tactic use in
gStudy by examining a strategic and self-regulated learning process. Computers and Human Behavior,
26(5), 1034–1042.
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific
inquiry learning. Metacognition Learning, 2, 141–155.
Nelson, L., Graf, A., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Metacognitive aspects of implicit/explicit memory. In L. Reder
(Ed.), Implicit menory and metacognition (pp. 137–194). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nesbit, J.C., Xhou, M., Xu, Y., & Winne, P.H. (2007). Advancing log analysis of student interactions with
cognitive tools. Paper presented in the European Association for Research on Learning and Insruction
(EARLI) 2000, Conference, Budabest, Hungary.
Nolen, S. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and
Instruction, 5(4), 269–287.
Nolen, S. (2006). Validity in assessing self-regulated learning: A comment on Perry & Winne. Educational
Psychology Review, 18(3), 229–232.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools
and corporations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.
Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2007). Teaching narrative comprehension strategies to first graders. Cognition
and Instruction, 25(1), 1–44.
Perry, N. E., & VandeKamp, K. J. O. (2000). Creating classroom contexts that support young children’s
development of self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 33(7–8),
821–843.
Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: GStudy traces of students’ self-regulated
engagements using software. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 211–228.
Pintrich, P. (2000). Role of goal orientation in self regulated learning. In M. Boekarts, P. Pintrich., & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.452–494). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Ponitz, C. E. C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008).
Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early
childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 141–158.
Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly
social. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 207–212.
Pressley, M., & Harris, K. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom
instruction. In P. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
265–286). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rabinowitz., M., Freeman, K., & Cohen, S. (1992). On the use and maintenance of strategies: The influence
of accessibility to knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 211–218.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). Child as coinvestigator: Helping children gain insights into their
own mental processes. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the
classroom (pp. 61–80). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmeck, R.R. (1988). Learning strategies and Learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.
Schneider, W., & Sodian, B. (1997). Memory strategy development: Lessons from longitudinal research.
Developmental Review, 17, 442–461.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text compre-
hension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 1–20.
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students reading comprehension skills: Effects
on strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272–286.
Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2006). Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks.
Educational Psychology Review, 18, 239–253.
Weinstein, C. E. (1988). Assesment and training of student learning strategies. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.),
Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 229–271). New York: Plenum Press.
Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pino Pasternak, D., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q., &
Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and
self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition Learning, 4, 63–85.
Wigfield, A., Klauda, S. L., & Cambria, J. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated and socially shared regu-
lation of learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Hand-Book of self-regulation of learning and
performance (p. 3347). New York: Routledge.

123
954 J. Malmberg et al.

Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In

B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement
(pp. 153–190). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H. (2005). Key issues in modeling and applying research on self-regulated learning. Applied
Psychology: An International review, 54(2), 232–238.
Winne, P. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school
reform. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 5–17.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, &
A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation in self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk &
B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning. Theory, research and applications (pp.
297–314). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study
tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.
Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2009). Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. In D. Hacker,
J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 259–277). New York:
Routledge.
Winne, P. H., Nesbit, J. C., Kumar, V., Hadwin, A. F., Lajoie, S. P., & Azewedo, R. (2006). Supporting self-
regulated learning with gStudy software: The LearningKit project. Cognition and Instruction, 3,
103–113.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532–566). San Diego: Academic Press.
Wolters, C. (1999). The relation between high school students0 motivational regulation and their use of
learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 3(3),
281–299.
Wolters, C., & Pintrich, P. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning
in mathematics, English and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 27–47.
Xu, Y., Nesbit, J. C., Zhou, M., Winne, P. H. (2007). LogValidator: A tool for identifying and mining patters
in gStudy log data. [computer program]. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73–86.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and
analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), self-regulated learning and academic
achievement (pp. 1–38). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodo-
logical developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.
Zimmerman, B., & Moylan, A. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In
D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–316).
New York: Routledge.

123